26 October 2011

A friend asked for my reaction to recent events in Libya. I lack strong interest in it. What happens there is their business--not ours. To the extent the West is involved--and it is--I oppose US/NATO meddling in other countries' affairs. I oppose liberal democracy and I oppose forcing it on North Africa and the Middle East (or anywhere else for that matter). Democracy is just a cover term for the same brand of soft-totalitarian, multikult one-party rule that prevails in the West. In this case, the globalists are unlikely to get what they want.

American support for revolution in the region is duplicitous. Do we really think the globalist American regime's commitment to "democracy" would extend to allowing an Arab Spring-like patriotic uprising to occur in America? Would European regimes tolerate ethno-nationalist revolutions? Fat chance. Already the American ruling elites are labelling Middle American political activists "terrorists". In Europe nationalists are persecuted by the state. To what end? In preparation, I think, for a crackdown and a final showdown. The fate of Gaddafi, Awlaki, and bin Laden awaits all opponents of globalist totalitarian rule.

If so, it might be a good thing. Enough talking. The time for debate is over. For dissidents like us, the media images of outlaw corpses paraded in front of the cameras should fire our imagination. We, too, have a dream: we hope someday to see the bloodied corpses of the globalist rulers, media figures, and functionaries at all levels presently in power in Western countries dragged through the streets. Who among us wouldn't crack a smile at the sight? We simply need to summon the will and muscle, when the time comes, to act.

I want for Uncle Sam to come home and be confined to his room for at least 50 years so he can't stick his nose into everyone else's business. Otherwise, the real fun will start when he feels the need to intervene with China on Taiwan's behalf.

Since the end of WWII, the government and business leadership of the United States has nobly but incorrectly assumed that it could make the world a better plae for all mankind by exporting our system of governance and economy to every other country around the world.

What a arorgant and costly mistake this folly has been. It has bankrupted us, debased our uniquely "American Characater", once the wonder of the world for its ingenuity, industriousness, forthrightness and thift, into a non-descript melange of political correctness and apologists.

Sadly, we have have lost our way. In doing our country has become more like the rest of the world - indolent, spendthrift, lazy and addicted to avaracious and opportunistic leadership addicted to telling us what they think we want to hear instead of taking bold action to move us forward in an increasingly turbulent, competitive and rapidly changing world.

Time to make some hard decisions, kick some ass and get us moving forward again!

Amusingly enough, the revolutionaries are setting up Islamic regimes which will prove to be even more disagreeable to the missionaries of liberal democracy. Not only are the rulers of the US insane, but they are idiots as well.

I agree we shouldn't have interfered in Libya. Gaddafi actually used a lot of the oil revenue to provide free education and health care to the people, as well as subsidizing gas so that it sold for under on Euro a liter. The thugs taking power in Libya now are butchers and the world will soon see worse oppresion there than there was under Gaddafi. They have already announced that the legal code will be based on sharia religious law. In Egypt the Coptic Christians are being b utchered and and harassed and most are leaving the country if they have the means. I don't know about the NWO, but I do know that forces are being unleased in the Middle East that have very little to do with democracy or freedom.

Even though it surely wasn't intended by US policy, the present chaotic situation in those Arabic countries is actually advantageous to them.

Surely, they do not like that Islamic fundamentalists are winning in those 'democratic' eletions but on the other hand there are still so many factions, clans families old and new affiliations, like the Schi'a- Sunna quarrels in Irak that those regions don't pose as much of a threat to America right now as they could if they all united under one banner of one leader.

But they cannot do that, they are not civilized enough to be able to do so.

I would actually like to see that the West would overcome its endless greed and simply *deny* any higher technology to those barbarians. Without having attained to European civilisation they should not have the right to use either missles or cars or telephones- they ought to fight with sticks, ride on donkeys and communicate via drums as befits their cultural and civilisatory standard.

Well said as always. Even though the media and the intellectually agoraphobic academic community thinks I'm crazy, I support Ron Paul because I have read far too much about foreign policy and economics to support anyone else. Most of the military agrees with me, which I appreciate more anyway since they've actually seen the effects of our interventionist policies first hand.

The fatal bullet may have been fired by a Libyan rebel but it was NATO (ie, US planes and technology) that attacked Qadaffi's convoy leading to his capture and killing. Does anyone think it wise and appropriate policy for the US to go around assassinating leaders of countries we have not declared war against? And how would we feel if the situation were reversed, if Iran were working to assassinate our President instead of just the Saudi ambassador, or if it had been established at the time that Castro's Cuba was behind Oswald's assassination of John Kennedy?

Second, after Qadaffi was shaken by the violent US removal of Saddam Hussein, it was clear Qadaffi and the US made a deal that Qadaffi would give up his nuclear weapons program and refrain from causing trouble in neighboring countries, and the US in turn would not attack Libya and Qadaffi. Do we want the US to be known as a country that reneges on such highly mutually advantageous types of agreements?

In retrospect Qadaffi would have been wiser to complete his nuclear weapons program. Then, like North Korea and possibly Iran, he would have been far more immune from US attack.

Ah...but what some of you naysayers have missed is that we are right....because WE ARE AMERICANS !!!! Name one sane person in the entire world who doesn't wish to dine at the golden arch; stroll through mouseland and spend the evening watching "real" housewives of who-gives-a-crap-where? Can't do it, can you?? !!

You see our founding fathers had it all wrong. They had this Ayn Rand attitude that we Americans ought to do what was in our best interest and mind our own businessness. To hell with the rest of the world.

But now that we know the "truth" we can help "friends" around the world [Fidel Castro...(ooops.. slight mistake)....the Shaw of Iran (ooops....that didn't work out so well either).....Augusto Pinnochet (ooops...another miscalculation).

Damnit...give me a while and I will come up with a reason to meddle in everyone else's affairs.

Don't talk to me about Arab springs or Western autumns....you are just trying to confuse me with the facts.